ArticleStroke2014
Can response-adaptive randomization increase participation in acute stroke trials?
Article in Stroke, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A Research Agenda for Precision Medicine in Sepsis and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021Guideline
- Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Understanding how the informed consent process influences the decision to participate in an adaptive platform trial: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- Patient engagement and shared decision-making in trial recruitment intervention studies: a systematic review.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Review
- Describing the content of trial recruitment interventions using the TIDieR reporting checklist: a systematic methodology review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- An Overview of Adaptive Designs and Some of Their Challenges, Benefits, and Innovative Applications.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Response adaptive randomization design for a two-stage study with binary response.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2023Article
- Should RECOVERY have used response adaptive randomisation? Evidence from a simulation study.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs.BMC medicine · 2020Article
- Outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: issues of participant welfare and autonomy.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2019Article
- Clinical trialist perspectives on the ethics of adaptive clinical trials: a mixed-methods analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2015Article
- Are outcome-adaptive allocation trials ethical?Clinical trials (London, England) · 2015Article
- Designing and Evaluating Bayesian Advanced Adaptive Randomised Clinical Trials: A Practical Guide.Pharmaceutical statisticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeA response-adaptive randomization (RAR) trial design actively adjusts the ratio of participants assigned to each trial arm, favoring the better performing treatment by using outcome data from participants already in the trial. Compared with a standard clinical trial, an RAR study design has the potential to improve patient participation in acute stroke trials.
methodsThis cross-sectional randomized survey included adult emergency department patients, age≥18, without symptoms of stroke or other critical illness. A standardized protocol was used, and subjects were randomized to either an RAR or standard hypothetical acute stroke trial. After viewing the video describing the hypothetical trial (http://youtu.be/cKIWduCaPZc), reviewing the consent form, and having questions answered, subjects indicated whether they would consent to the trial. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to estimate the impact of RAR while controlling for demographic factors and patient understanding of the design.
resultsA total of 418 subjects (210 standard and 208 RAR) were enrolled. All baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. There was significantly higher participation in the RAR trial (67.3%) versus the standard trial (54.5%), absolute increase: 12.8% (95% confidence interval, 3.7-22.2). The RAR group had a higher odds ratio of agreeing to research (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.9) while adjusting for patient level factors. Trial designs were generally well understood by the participants.
conclusionsThe hypothetical RAR trial attracted more research participation than standard randomization. RAR has the potential to increase recruitment and offer benefit to future trial participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.